PubMed · 15212008
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Steven D Wexner, Kenneth A Forde. 2004. Perforation during colonoscopy.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5107(04)00458-4
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Flexible endoscopy is a vital component of gastrointestinal surgery. It has and will replace many of the surgical procedures now commonly performed. Flexible endoscopy, unfortunately, is not an integral part of surgical residency training based on resident operative experience as reported by the Residency Review Committee. Moreover, general surgeons have deferred the practice of flexible endoscopy to the gastroenterologists because of concerns over turf battles and referral patterns. The purpose of this study was to assess the overall case load and the economic impact of flexible endoscopy on the practice of general surgery in a community hospital setting. METHODS: This retrospective review was performed over a 6-month period. The total cases and the total billings of inpatient and outpatient procedures for a group practice of five general surgeons in a community hospital were evaluated. The billings were the actual charges based on current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for these procedures using the Medicare fee schedule. RESULTS: Of the 2,159 procedures performed, 1,154 involved flexible endoscopy cases accounting for 54% of all cases (1,154 of 2,159) performed from February 1, 2003 to July 31, 2003. Flexible endocopy accounted for 43% of the total charges. A. total of 46 surgical procedures and 216 future endoscopies were generated from the flexible endoscopic procedures. Future endoscopic cases were for surveillance of colonic neoplasia and Barrett's esophagus. CONCLUSIONS: Flexible endoscopy contributed to a major portion of the caseload and revenue generated by the general surgery group studied. The overall impact of flexible endoscopy is even greater than reported because of the future endoscopic surveillance cases or surgical interventions generated on the basis of endoscopic findings.
BACKGROUND: Age-related cataract accounts for more than 40% of cases of blindness in the world with the majority of people who are blind from cataract found in the developing world. With the increased number of people with cataract there is an urgent need for cataract surgery to be made available as a day care procedure. OBJECTIVES: To provide reliable evidence regarding the safety, feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cataract extraction performed as day care versus in-patient procedure. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004), EMBASE (1980 to August 2004) and LILACS (July 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: This review includes randomised controlled trials comparing day care and in-patient surgery for age-related cataract. The primary outcome was the achievement of a satisfactory visual acuity six weeks after the operation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Although two trials are included in the review, adequate data were available for only one trial and therefore pooling of data from studies was not attempted. A descriptive summary is presented. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials, involving a total of 1284 people, are included in this review. One trial reported statistically significant differences in early postoperative complication rates in the day care group, with an increased risk of increased intraocular pressure, which had no clinical relevance to visual outcomes four months postoperatively. The mean change in visual acuity (Snellen lines) of the operated eye four months postoperatively was 4.1 (standard deviation (SD) 2.3) for the day care group and 4.1 (SD 2.2) for the in-patient group and not statistically significant. The four-month postoperative mean change in quality of life score measured using the VF14 showed minimal differences between the two groups. Costs were 20% more for the in-patient group and this was attributed to higher costs for overnight stay. One study only reported hotel costs for the non-hospitalised participants making aggregation of data on costs impossible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides some evidence that there is a cost saving but no significant difference in outcome or risk of postoperative complications between day care and in-patient cataract surgery. This is based on one detailed and methodologically sound trial conducted in the developed world. The success, safety and cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery as a day care procedure appear to be acceptable but additional well-designed trials are required to confirm these perceptions.
Day-case surgery involves a considerable amount of stress not only for the children who undergo surgery but also for their parents. In a prospective survey analysis performed in 1995/1996, we identified the following main factors influencing the amount of stress experienced by parents: feelings of insufficient preparation and problems with postoperative pain at home. As a consequence, measures were taken regarding information and pain management, including the creation of an interactive CD-ROM. We then analysed the consequences of our interventions regarding parental stress. In this study we collected the data of all patients who underwent day-case surgery during two additional 13-month periods in 1997/1998 and 1999/2000. The methods of data collection remained unchanged for all three periods and included a questionnaire for the parents. In total, 1,490 questionnaires were analysed. Comparing the three time periods, parents' feelings of being well-informed improved significantly (91% vs. 98% vs. 97%, P < 0.0001). However, the percentage of those experiencing moderate to severe stress did not change substantially (16% vs. 9% vs. 19%, not significant). Analgaesics were given more frequently over the years in a general as well as a prophylactic manner (20% vs. 35% vs. 43%, P < 0.0001). Nevertheless, problems with pain control at home remained unchanged (33% vs. 23% vs. 29%, not significant). Despite considerable efforts to improve information, parental stress did not significantly decrease. It cannot be assessed yet whether wrong information was given or whether a certain degree of stress cannot be prevented. There is some evidence that improvements in coping with pain-related problems might be a promising next step.